During the last decade, our society has become based on the sole ability to move large amounts of information across great distances quickly. Computerization has influenced everyone's life in numerous ways. The natural evolution of computer technology and this need for ultra-fast communications has caused a global network of interconnected computers to develop. This global network allows a person to send E-mail across the world in mere fractions of a second, and allows a common person to access wealths of information worldwide. This newfound global network, originally called Arconet, was developed and funded solely by and for the U.S. government. It was to be used in the event of a nuclear attack in order to keep communications lines open across the country by rerouting information through different servers across the country. Does this mean that the government owns the Internet, or is it no longer a tool limited by the powers that govern. Generalities such as these have sparked great debates within our nation's government. This paper will attempt to focus on two high profile ethical aspects concerning the Internet and its usage. These subjects are Internet privacy and Internet censorship.

At the moment, the Internet is epitome of our first amendment, free speech. It is a place where a person can speak their mind without being reprimanded for what they say or how they choose to say it. But also contained on the Internet, are a huge collection of obscene graphics, Anarchists' cookbooks, and countless other things that offend many people. There are over 30 million Internet surfers in the U.S. alone, and much is to be said about what offends whom and how.

As with many new technologies, today's laws don't apply well when it comes to the Internet. Is the Internet like a bookstore, where servers can not be expected to review every title? Is it like a phone company who must ignore what it carries because of privacy; or is it like a broadcast medium, where the government monitors what is broadcast? The problem we are facing today is that the Internet can be all or none of the above depending on how it is used.

Internet censorship, what does it mean? Is it possible to censor amounts of information that are all alone unimaginable? The Internet was originally designed to "find a way around" in case of broken communications lines, and it seems that explicit material keeps finding its "way around" too. I am opposed to such content on the Internet and therefore am a firm believer in Internet censorship. However, the question at hand is just how much censorship the government impose. Because the Internet has become the largest source of information in the world, legislative safeguards are indeed imminent. Explicit material is not readily available over the mail or telephone and distribution of obscene material is illegal. Therefore, there is no reason this stuff should go unimpeded across the Internet. Sure, there are some blocking devices, but they are no substitute for well-reasoned law. To counter this, the United States has set regulations to determine what is categorized as obscenity and what is not. By laws set previously by the government, obscene material should not be accessible through the Internet. The problem society is now facing is that cyberspace is like a neighborhood without a police department. "Outlaws" are now able to use powerful cryptography to send and receive uncrackable communications across the Internet. Devices set up to filter certain communications cannot filter that which cannot be read, which leads to my other topic of interest: data encryption.

By nature, the Internet is an insecure method of transferring data. A single E-mail packet may pass through hundreds of computers between its source and destination. At each computer,...

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

...GovernmentIntervention of the Internet
During the past decade, our society has become based solely on the ability to
move large amounts of information across large distances quickly.
Computerization has influenced everyone's life. The natural evolution of
computers and this need for ultra-fast communications has caused a global
network of interconnected computers to develop. This global net allows a person
to send E-mail across the world in mere fractions of a second, and enables even
the common person to access information world-wide. With advances such as
software that allows users with a sound card to use the Internet as a carrier
for long distance voice calls and video conferencing, this network is key to
the future of the knowledge society. At present, this net is the epitome of the
first amendment: free speech. It is a place where people can speak their mind
without being reprimanded for what they say, or how they choose to say it. The
key to the world-wide success of the Internet is its protection of free speech,
not only in America, but in other countries where free speech is not protected
by a constitution. To be found on the Internet is a huge collection of obscene
graphics, Anarchists' cookbooks and countless other things that offend some
people. With over 30 million Internet users in the U.S. alone (only 3 million of
which surf the net from home),...

...GovernmentInternetIntervention
The Internet is a method of communication and a source of information that is becoming more popular among those who are interested in, and have the time to surf the information superhighway. The problem with much information being accessible to this many people is that some of it is deemed inappropriate for minors. The government wants censorship, but a segment of the population does not.
During the past decade, our society has become based solely on the ability to move large amounts of information across large distances quickly. Computerization has influenced everyone's life. The natural evolution of computers and this need for ultra-fast communications has caused a global network of interconnected computers to develop. This global net allows a person to send E-mail across the world in mere fractions of a second, and enables even the common person to access information worldwide. With the advances with software that allows users with a sound card to use the Internet as a carrier for long distance voice calls and video conferencing, this network is the key to the future of the knowledge society. At present this net is the epitome of the First Amendment: freedom of speech. It is a place where people can speak their mind without being reprimanded for what they say, or how they choose to say it.
The government wants to maintain control...

...price --> less supplied and consumed of demerit goods. Increase in consumer welfare.
-Government gains revenue.
-Tax receipts can be used to further help with problem e.g. Taxing alcoholic drinks and using the receipts to add funding to the NHS or policing.
Disadvantages:
-If demand is very income inelastic (e.g. cigarettes) then consumption would not greatly reduce-> potential for black market. If consumption does remain the same then taxation is just a way for the government to basically, take people’s money.
-Leads to inflationary pressure
-Hard to decide the level of taxation as Impossible to work out exact value of negative externalities.
-In the case of pollution it is particularly hard as there would have to be an agreement with other countries about what to do with the tax money. (If the UK gov. receives money from pollution permits, should some of this money go to other countries who suffer from the affects of British pollution?
-Some taxes simply make things less equitable e.g. Introducing a fat tax would just make it harder for poorer people to afford food.
SUBSIDIES RATING 7/10
advantages:
-prices fall so the demand and consumption of merit goods/positive externalities will increase = increase in economic welfare
- can make things more equitable e.g. Subsidising healthy foods would make lower prices for the poorest in society.
Disadvantages:
-expensive for the Government (opportunity cost?)
- correct...

...It is not only unnecessary for the government to intervene to maintain a free market, it is extremely wrong. Intervention by any outside party in corporate matters is inappropriate and basically contradicts the meaning of a free market.
There are some positive effects governmentintervention could produce. These pros are, in fact, few, and questionable, at that. Take for instance, the situation with Microsoft. The government is sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong. Let's try and get passed that point for a moment and examine the good that could come out of governmentintervention.
One possible pro to this intervention is that it would most likely create a more equal market (not "fair market.") The term "fair market" is like an oxymoron in this case because basically the government is saying, "Hi, we're the United States government and we're sorry but we cannot let you continue to run your business. Although you have spent your life working to improve and simplify the computer industry, we simply feel you have made too much money." How is this in any way fair? In some people's eyes it is for the best of the economy and the computer industry, but it is definitely not fair. For the government to break down Microsoft, a multi-billion dollar company would be ridiculous. True, maybe the market would be...

...The American government is practically in our everyday
lives, including our private lives. The government is basically
everything we do. It is the way we work, the reason why we look
for a career, the way we eat or drink to conclude, the way we live.
Sometimes it is a problem for most citizens but some other times,
it is the real reason why they live better and maintain everything
they have. The government is the people; it is education,
entertainment, peace but can be completely different at certain
periods of time. As a prevention from too much governmentintervention, the people of America have a representative dating
since 1773,called the Tea Party Movement. This movement wants
the government to stick to the real meaning and intent of the
United States Constitution, meaning that the government should
not use such law as the Elastic clause. The Tea Party Movement
would also like to see the government reducing its speding, lower
taxes and reducing the national debt and federal budget deficit.
This means in one phrase, relief to the people. And yet, doing so
would require more governmentintervention in our lives.
The Tea Party is like the real representative of the people, because
it would like to see the government accomplishing everything the
people request, which is mostly...

...Discuss the case for and against governmentintervention in an economy.
In most of the countries, the government has intervened in the market system. To some extent there is a dire need of governmentintervention in the market system, although there is a debate over this point among the economists. Many economists believe that the role of governmentintervention improves the market system. The government can easily enforce the rules that can help in the smooth functioning of the market system. On the other hand, there are economists who believe that governmentinterventions in a market system are the reason of inefficiency in the system.
There are some goods that underprovided and underconsumed. Such goods are cold merit goods. They can be defined in terms of their externality effects and also in terms of informational problems facing the consumer.
A merit good is a product that society values and judges that everyone should have regardless of whether an individual wants them. In this sense, the government is acting paternally in providing merit goods and services. They believe that individuals may not act in their own best interest in part because of imperfect information about the benefits that can be derived. Good examples of merit goods include health services, education, and work training programmes.
Why does...

...same thing to myself; “This part of the city, this hotel, and those robbers would be all in better conditions not just economically but generally, if our elected officials (at the state and federal levels) didn’t always spend their time arguing or campaigning, but actually trying to work together to make life better for the citizens of the United States” (REWORD).
The more I developed opinions, the more I really looked forward to working shifts there -- it was a place to sit down and watch the news, once a week. To get involved in the government, through knowledge and awareness.
By June 2012, the hotel was set to be shut down and demolished by the state in pursuit of a massive highway reconstruction project on US-31. Walking out of the doors for the last time in 8 years, the doors I smeared my fingerprints on as a hyper 7 year old and cleaned as a 14 year old, I was set on what I wanted to do as an adult -- public service, in the government. I want to serve one day as a representative of the people, one that focuses in the end on addressing the issue and compromising, for the sake of our future.
A friend of mine at school, whose political views I share, suggested that I start a CHS Young Democrats club. I consider myself a Democrat -- but I saw that club as the last thing I would ever start. I wanted to make a political discussion club that has no set leaning or favor, a neutral one. This way, students of any political affiliation...

...costs down dramatically, and the resultant integrated wireless transceiver chip which transfers data at high speed, low power at low price $10 only, which is very less As compare to present systems. As development goes on, the price will be decreased.
5. Small Size:
The chip, just 5 mm per side, has a tiny 1 mm antenna and uses the 60 GHz ‘millimetre-wave’ spectrum.
6. Quick Deployment:
Compared with the deployment of wired solutions, Gi-Fi requires little or no external plant construction. For example, excavation to support the trenching of cables is not required. Operators that have obtained licenses to use one of the licensed bands, or that plan to use one of the unlicensed bands; do not need to submit further applications to the Government. Once the antenna and equipment are installed and powered, Gi-Fi is ready for service. In most cases, deployment of Gi-Fi can be completed in a matter of minutes, compared with hours for other solutions.
7. High Performance:
One particular 60 GHz radio link is quickly reduced to a level that will not interfere with other 60 GHz links operating in the same geographic vicinity. Because of low interference it probably gives high performance.
Other features:
High level of frequency re-use enabled – communication, needs of multiple customers, within a small geographic region can be satisfied.
It is also highly portable-we can construct where ever we want.
It deploys line of sight operation having only shorter...